Suleman

Suleman v. Superior Court

Good Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 651·180 Cal. App. 4th 1287·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 8
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 2010G042509California6,516 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

In January 2009, Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets. Paul Petersen filed a petition seeking appointment of a guardian of the octuplets’ estates, who would replace Suleman as the person making financial decisions for the children. Probate Code section 1510, subdivision (a) permits a petition for appointment of a guardian to be filed by “[a] relative or other person on behalf of the minor.” (All further statutory references are to the Probate Code, unless otherwise specified.) This writ proceeding was brought by Suleman to challenge the probate court’s denial of her motion to dismiss Petersen’s petition and the court’s appointment of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to conduct an investigation of the family’s finances.

The probate court erred by denying Suleman’s motion to dismiss the petition. The petition should have been dismissed because Petersen has neither pleaded ultimate facts demonstrating Suleman has engaged in any financial misconduct, nor alleged any other information warranting court intervention in the Suleman family’s finances. For these reasons, Petersen has no standing under section 1510, subdivision (a) and, even if he did,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.